burden of proof rule in Virginia

2020Davis v. Malbon, 195 Va. 368, 369-70 (1953), and Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 573 (1923), contending that the proper burden of proof was “clear and convincing evidence.” After hearing argument on this issue, the circuit court ruled that “it is the Commonwealth’s burden” and “that burden is by the preponderance of the evidence.” Second, the circuit court heard argument on Townes’ and Silvestro’s request for interrogatories and production of documents.

2012“This burden-of-proof principle is an exception to the business judgment rule which limits the power of courts in reviewing the internal management of corporate affairs.” Id.

2004We reject this argument because of the language in Gilman . ‘While Pettus undoubtedly employed intellectual skill in selecting properties to be purchased, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Pettus contributed ‘significant’ personal effort that was the proximate cause of ‘substantial appreciation’ in the value of these assets.” Gilman, 32 Va.App. at 121 , 526 S.E.2d at 771 .

2004We reject this argument because of the language in Gilman . ‘While Pettus undoubtedly employed intellectual skill in selecting properties to be purchased, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Pettus contributed ‘significant’ personal effort that was the proximate cause of ‘substantial appreciation’ in the value of these assets.” Gilman, 32 Va.App. at 121 , 526 S.E.2d at 771 .

1990Id.

1980Applying the presumption of continuance of public convenience and necessity and the burden of proof rule expounded in Park Bros. v. S & M Systems Corp., 216 Va. 322 , 218 S.E.2d 441 (1975), the Commission approved the application upon a finding that Rick’s “ ‘is fit, has the capability and will furnish adequate and proper service’ ” and that the protestants had failed to show “ ‘ruinous or unreasonable competition, or that the transfer will not serve the public convenience and necessity’ ”, quoting 216 Va. at 326 , 218 S.E.2d at 444 .

1980Applying the presumption of continuance of public convenience and necessity and the burden of proof rule expounded in Park Bros. v. S & M Systems Corp., 216 Va. 322 , 218 S.E.2d 441 (1975), the Commission approved the application upon a finding that Rick’s “ ‘is fit, has the capability and will furnish adequate and proper service’ ” and that the protestants had failed to show “ ‘ruinous or unreasonable competition, or that the transfer will not serve the public convenience and necessity’ ”, quoting 216 Va. at 326 , 218 S.E.2d at 444 .